Bashing Garland for the election? Spell out the evidence he supposedly had that he could have used to convict Trump

[lees1975]

51. The Congressional investigation produced a mountain of evidence.

A sharp, focused, competent attorney general, who understood what was at stake, would have already cleared the calendar, set aside the staff and laid thr groundwork for prosecution during the investigation and would have issued indictments based on that evidence, the day after the hearings ended. I''ve read multiple attorneys, including experts in stuff like this, like Jill Winebanks, who said they could easily have done this on the weight of what Congress uncovered.

They were already prosecuting and sentencing many of the insurrectionists. Many of them provided all kinds of evidence.

Even some conservatives have conceded this would have been a slam dunk. No guarantees the GOP wouldn't have nominated a candidate worse, if that was possible, but at least Trump would be in prison now.

I've read all of the apologetics defending the foot dragging and all of the crap about needing time to put together an inronclad case blah blah blah. It's bunk. It could have easily been done on the evidence from the investigation in three months, and there are plenty of people in the legal field who have come out and said exactly that. Joyce Vance Jill WInebanks,